LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: [lvs-users] LVS-DR generates TONS of icmp unreachables

To: Jivko Velev <jiko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [lvs-users] LVS-DR generates TONS of icmp unreachables
Cc: wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Jerry Glomph Black <black@xxxxxxxx>, Julian Anastasov <uli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Joseph Mack <mack@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 16:26:03 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Jivko Velev wrote:

> > In VS-DR the director never sees the replies from the realservers and will
> > have no way of knowing which realserver is responsible for these ICMP
> > replies. Not seeing the replies is a Good Thing in that it keeps the
> > throughput of the LVS high. However it does make monitoring the health of
> > the LVS difficult. The problem of PORT_UNREACH is discussed in sect 14.16
> > of the HOWTO in this context.
> 
> TCP connection is a full duplex connection and as i understood with VS-DR
> and VS-TUN Redirector doesnt see only the server-client side of the channel,
> but the other side we have TCP confirmation packets flowing from client to
> sever and they still go throught the redirector.
> Is that true ? 

yes. The director doesn't see the packets going from the realserver to the
client, but does see the packets going from the client to the realserver.

Joe



--
Joseph Mack mack@xxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>